All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
	Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in 5.3 for some FS_USERNS_MOUNT (aka user-namespace-mountable) filesystems
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 00:22:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190726232220.GM1131@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgK254RkZg9oAv+Wt4V9zqYJMm3msTofvTUfA9dJw6piQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 03:47:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Of course, then later on, commit 20284ab7427f ("switch mount_capable()
> to fs_context") drops that argument entirely, and hardcodes the
> decision to look at fc->global.
> 
> But that fc->global decision wasn't there originally, and is incorrect
> since it breaks existing users.
> 
> What gets much more confusing about this is that the two different
> users then moved around. The sget_userns() case got moved to
> legacy_get_tree(), and then joined together in vfs_get_tree(), and
> then split and moved out to do_new_mount() and vfs_fsconfig_locked().
> 
> And that "joined together into vfs_get_tree()" must be wrong, because
> the two cases used two different namespace rules. The sget_userns()
> case *did* have that "global" flag check, while the sget_fc() did not.
> 
> Messy. Al?

Digging through that mess...  It's my fuckup, and we obviously need to
restore the old behaviour, but I really hope to manage that with
checks _not_ in superblock allocator ;-/

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-26 23:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-26 11:59 Regression in 5.3 for some FS_USERNS_MOUNT (aka user-namespace-mountable) filesystems Christian Brauner
2019-07-26 22:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-07-26 23:22   ` Al Viro [this message]
2019-07-27  0:46     ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-07-27  2:28       ` Al Viro
2019-07-27 11:20         ` Eric W. Biederman
2019-07-27 12:37           ` Al Viro
2019-07-27 13:17             ` Al Viro
2019-07-27  2:23     ` Al Viro

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190726232220.GM1131@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=christian@brauner.io \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.